[bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
suresh at hserus.net
Tue Dec 2 01:45:17 EST 2014
You are hardly the first to erroneously term multistakeholder governance
And please let us not go into that Eric Raymond bazaar analogy to describe
What you're essentially claiming is that nobody other than
intergovernmental and government agencies, and some specific class of civil
society that shares both an extreme aversion to industry as well as a
particular affinity to govt / intergovernmental agencies should have a say
and everybody else should be shut out of the process.
That everybody else being a clear majority, minority views do get listened
to, subject to stopping short at nonsensical proposals such as what you
On December 2, 2014 12:09:36 PM parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 December 2014 03:43 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> > snip
> > Yes, I object to the idea of the UN or ITU gaining supremacy over the
> > Internet but I and many others have long supported them as equal
> > footing participants in IG functions.
> > And yes, I would equally object to NMI or WEF gaining supremacy in IG
> > as well. I do not have the impression that they are trying to do
> > this. And if they try, we better be there to nip it in the bud. But I
> > support them being equal footing participants in IG in the same way I
> > support the UN and UN system organizations.
> 'Equal support' and 'equal objection' to governments and, what is
> essentially, an industry body in taking up public policy roles is an
> interesting stand!
> You just see governments as public policy actors at the same level as
> industry bodies. That precisely is the problem.
> This is the neoliberal conception of governance, where (even political)
> governance is a kind of a bazaar, where anyone can come in and make
> deals, and those who have the greatest resources to back their deals
> carry the day, opting-in being of course voluntary and basically
> dependent upon how much can one resist a certain configuration of power
> which has entered into a particular deal. Any set of actors is
> 'formally' as good as any other, and legitimate political power, based
> on people's representation, and an implied social contract, counts for
> nothing. (In fact this neolib model is constructed precisely to
> overthrow such currently dominant democratic models, and is therefore
> post-democratic, equal-footing multistakeholderism being just a
> convenient name for it.)
> Neoliberalism is defined as the application of market principles to
> everything, including those areas in which such principles are not
> normally applied. The above is a perfect case of the application of
> market principles to governance, as I said , the pristine neoliberal
> governance model.
> One often wonders, and I have thrown this challenge oftentimes in this
> space, why do the same actors not try to propose this model at the
> national levels . Propose that the government(s) and industry
> associations are at the same level in terms of public policy
> development, and they should work together as such. You would get some
> very clear and resounding responses that will tell you whether this
> model is democratic or not. In fact, go even further down to local
> governance level as well and propose the same thing. That is a simple
> test of democracy, isnt it.
> > avri
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance